18 of 19 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
THE book to read about consciousness and/or causation, April 28 2005
By John R. Gregg - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: A Place for Consciousness: Probing the Deep Structure of the Natural World (Hardcover)
Rosenberg spends the first part of his book arguing against the various flavors of reductive materialism and functionalism, and for a more or less Whiteheadian form of panpsychism. He goes on to make some claims about the kinds of properties we would expect of proto-consciousness at the lowest levels. He points out that panpsychism commonly has a distinctly ad hoc air about it, in that we have a high level phenomenon, consciousness, and we explain it by jamming in a new cog in the machine at the lowest possible levels of physics. He counters this by claiming that there are independent reasons for positing a layer underneath physics, and we can make certain claims about what this layer would have to be like completely without reference to the question of consciousness (or proto-consciousness), and in the end the properties we demand of this sub-physics layer match up nicely with the properties we require of proto-consciousness.
His layer underneath physics is causation. David Hume is the West's great philosopher of causation, and Rosenberg argues that Humean causation can not be the whole story, and that we should think about causation a bit more. "Causation is a funny thing. We do not understand it." Rosenberg says that time and space are higher-level concepts than causation, and are derived from it. He quotes Brian Cantwell-Smith: "Distance is what there is no action at." And Rosenberg himself: "There is a causality condition on locality, not a locality condition on causality." He goes on to argue about the causal mesh, and the sorts of laws of physics which could be built out of different configurations of effective and receptive properties of objects, and what constitutes an object in the first place. Then he ties it all back to consciousness at the end.
If Rosenberg is right, he should get a Nobel prize. If he is wrong, his is still an Important Book, because it actually pounds a stake in the ground and lays out a theory, or at least a template of a future theory. No one else does this. Even in this fringey branch of philosophy, people are much too conservative, and Rosenberg has boldly gone where no one has gone before. But he has done so rigorously, level headedly, admitting where he is being speculative, but arguing why the circumstantial evidence supports his speculations.
17 of 18 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Rosenberg, Consciousness & Causality, Dec 15 2004
By Stephen Esser "steve_esser" - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: A Place for Consciousness: Probing the Deep Structure of the Natural World (Hardcover)
This book offers an ambitious new metaphysical proposal for understanding the natural world. It does this by exploring the deep connection between the philosophical problems of consciousness and causality, and then offering a thorough and detailed model for addressing both.
The outline of the book is as follows: first Rosenberg offers his take on the problem of consciousness in the context of contemporary philosophy of mind. Toward the end of this discussion he foreshadows how the issues which need to be addressed in this area connect to the challenges of understanding causality. He then shifts gears to critique past accounts of causality and present his own solution. Finally, he shows the connection between consciousness and causality and how to improve our understanding of both through a unified approach.
From the perspective of a general reader, I would say that the more background reading you've done on these topics, the better you will understand the book. Between my first and second reading I read other philosophy papers on causality and this helped. But at the same time, I think there are so many good ideas in the book that I would recommend it to anyone, even if you end up skimming some parts.
In recent reading I've done, it has been somewhat a revelation to realize the degree to which causality had still posed such a philosophical challenge. We are led to believe that the types of physical theories we have are also good objective causal explanations, but they are not. In showing how the challenges of understanding consciousness and causality are linked and making a proposal for a unified solution, Rosenberg's book should make it extremely difficult for the reader to consider either topic in isolation from the other going forward.
To conclude, I thought this was an excellent and thought-provoking book which really moves the discussion forward toward an improved metaphysics of the natural world. I hope the ideas in it gain circulation.
10 of 11 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars
Physicalism Stripped Naked, Reductionism's Reductio, April 23 2005
By S. R. Deiss "bs-me-not" - Published on Amazon.com
This review is from: A Place for Consciousness: Probing the Deep Structure of the Natural World (Hardcover)
I highly recommend this book to anyone with the patience for following mind bending philosophical argument and with a sense of wonder about what the lowest "level" is where consciousness-like stuff shows up in the world we live in. For readers who do not have those two traits, my condolences. Maybe in your next incarnation....
The author has set the stage for a new debate and new approaches to unraveling the mind-body problem. His criticisms of physicalism, substance dualism, and a host of other prevalent approaches is spot on. The fine distinctions between this Liberal Naturalism he proposes and its philosophical antecedents is carefully developed. The Theory of Causal Significance underlying this approach is worthy of consideration.
In spite of a relevant background, I found the book a difficult read. I may get it all straight after a 3rd reading. Yet it is worth the effort. I am not sure whether I will end up in agreement with the author's main views or not. But I am sure that I will be struggling with the issues he raises for some time to come.
For making us think harder and for sending tremors through prevalent dogma, we should thank Rosenberg for pointing us to a family of promising alternate paths to understanding. However this turns out, science will be the wiser.